[robertpaulsen]

"I doubt if the notion of using 1-8-3 was even conceivable in years prior to 1919 ..."

I think it was conceivable. The Webb-Kenyon Act was passed in 1913, and that was a federal statute against transporting liquor into states that wished to block its entry.

Granted, that was an interstate commerce issue, but it is evidence of a 1-8-3 power.

With a little imagination, one can justify total prohibition as Necessary and Proper to carry out the provisions of the Webb-Kenyon act.

[inquest]

With a little imagination, one can justify total prohibition as Necessary and Proper to carry out the provisions of the Webb-Kenyon act.

No less an authority than Alexander Hamilton warned against such an expansive interpretation of the necessary-and-proper clause. In Federalist #33, he gave the example of the federal government restricting the power of state governments to tax, so as to preserve its own tax base, and said that a law like that would be clearly unconstitutional. A complete prohibition on alcohol in order to assist with a prohibition of interstate transport of alcohol would be highly analogous to his example.

Good night, I'll catch up on this in the morning.

[William Terrell]

Granted, that was an interstate commerce issue, but it is evidence of a 1-8-3 power.

Wickard was the only "evidence" of 1-8-3 "power". Otherwise, you could say that any statute enacted under 1-8-3 was evidence of it's power.

I don't know why anyone would cheer on an obviously flawed ruling of the SC. One may be against drugs, but going extra-constitutional to do it indicates ignorance of precedent and consequences of shortsightedness.

Did you catch this? "It held that his 239 excess bushels of wheat affected the national wheat market whether he sold it or not, since wheat he produced for his own use was wheat he didn't have to buy elsewhere."

Notice the SC reasons that if wheat producing farmers themselves were to not buy wheat, it would affect the national wheat market.

The logic of the SC in Wickard is just absurd. I'd be embarrassed to support it in any way for any reason.